IKRAM-UL-MAJEED SEHGAL versus PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INTERIOR
R6 (1) (iii) General Clause Act (X of 1897), Section 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitution Petition Joins him as the new Director / Chief Executive of Applicant \ WH \ (Security Services Company) Application for. The request submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan on behalf of its shareholders was rejected by the Interior Ministry on the basis of ISI and IB reports, which led to the private security agencies' rule. Rule 6 (1) (III) of the 2001 Act is prohibited. The licensors who employed the person in the absence of clearance from government agencies, including the Special Branch ISI / IB Petitioner, did not request their participation as an employee in WHO, thus, R 6 (1) (iii) of the Private Security Agencies Regulations 2001 does not apply to this case The Government could not refuse such application on a flawed basis and in their personal wishes. The ministry did not present any material on record to justify the applicant's explicit denial, the ministry did not apply any such report. For the applicant, who was still working as the Chief Executive of another Security Services Company (SMS), the last renewal of the SMS license was made in December 2011 and the applicant applied in September 2011. Such a request would prove irrelevant to the ministry on my part. As a secret, the proceedings will not be presented in accordance with the requirement of section 24A of the General Clause Act, 1897. Due to lack of reasons in the imported reports, Section 24A of the General Clause Act, 1897 was called, for speaking, rational and detailed order.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
